Roy Mark Blog - marksremarks's Blog

Roy Mark Blog - marksremarks's Blog - Victoria Advocate http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks Politics and the human race Politics and the human race en-us Poll: Racial misgivings of whites an Obama issue http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8903 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8903  From an article by Sep 20 01:11 PM US/Eastern By RON FOURNIER and TREVOR TOMPSON Associated Press Writers WASHINGTON (AP) - Deep-seated racial misgivings could cost Obama The poll, conducted with <a href="http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=Stanford%20University&sid=breitbart.com">Stanford University,</a> suggests that the percentage of voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could easily be larger than the final difference between the candidates in 2004—about 2.5 percentage points. "There are a lot fewer bigots than there were 50 years ago, but that doesn't mean there's only a few bigots," said Stanford political scientist Paul Sniderman who helped analyze the exhaustive survey. Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain. Still, the effects of whites' racial views are apparent in the polling. Statistical models derived from the poll suggest that Obama's support would be as much as 6 percentage points higher if there were no white racial prejudice. Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment. Among white Democrats, one-third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama. The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites." Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment. Among white Democrats, one-third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama. The poll sought to measure latent prejudices among whites by asking about factors contributing to the state of black America. One finding: More than a quarter of white Democrats agree that "if blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites." Researchers used mathematical modeling to sort out the relative impact of a huge swath of variables that might have an impact on people's votes—including race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers. Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton's white backers plan to vote for McCain. Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries—particularly whites with high school education or less—were motivated in part by racial attitudes. The survey of 2,227 adults was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 5. It has a margin of sampling error of plus  or minus 2.1 percentage points Roy Mark Gov Palin approval 53% and rising Media approval knee high papa and falling http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8728 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8728 Linda Chavez Townhall Make no mistake -- the press outed Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Reporters descended on Alaska following vile and false accusations on Internet blogs that Gov. Palin faked her own pregnancy and that her daughter was actually baby Trig's mother. These lies weren't only spread by left-wing fanatics but by journalists like Andrew Sullivan, whose blog appears on Atlantic.com, the online version of what was once one of the most respected magazines in the country. As the rumors got uglier, the McCain campaign decided they had no choice but to reveal to the world intimate details about Gov. Palin's daughter. And the media stood by their decision to muckrake by arguing for the public's right to know. If you don't think this reflects media bias, contrast this insatiable prying into Bristol Palin's life with the press's lack of curiosity about the behavior of another 17-year-old -- one whose story would seem to have more relevance to this year's presidential election. In his memoir "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama describes his troubled teenaged years. "Pot had helped, and booze, maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack though," he recalls, though he admits he came close to trying heroin at the urging of a friend who shot up in front of him. He was deterred by the image "of an air bubble, shiny and round like a pearl, rolling quietly through my vein and stopping my heart," he says. "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man." Obama's drug use went on for at least a few years, though he is noticeably vague in describing exactly when it began, how extensive it was, or when it ended. At least one of his friends was arrested for drug possession; another had a mental breakdown after one too many acid trips. But Obama has been reticent to reveal the extent of his illegal activities -- and the media haven't cared enough to pursue the question. Past drug use by presidential candidates was considered a legitimate subject of inquiry for Bill Clinton (who, famously, "didn't inhale") and George W. Bush. News organizations devoted considerable investigative resources in 2000 to track down unsubstantiated rumors about Bush's alleged cocaine use -- and printed the accusation, even when there was no credible evidence that it was true. Yet those same news organizations treat Obama's admitted -- and apparently heavy -- youthful drug use as if it were off-limits. What a candidate did as a young man -- even if it was illegal -- should not necessarily disqualify him from becoming president. But shouldn't we want to know a bit more than he's volunteered to disclose   Roy Mark Clinton Administration cost us billions in lost offshore royalties http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8646 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8646 Clinton Administration cost us billions in lost offshore royalties By Greg Fuller June 19th, 2008 http://www.blackstarnews.com/?c=123&a=4633 "The law contained safeguards to prevent a windfall for drilling companies by terminating the relief when oil prices rose above a certain level, but Clinton Administration officials failed to include those provisions in some 1,000 deepwater leases it signed in 1998 and 1999. That oversight would come to haunt the federal government. As oil prices rose in 2004 to the point at which royalty relief should have ended on those leases, the cost to the Treasury in lost revenue rose to billions of dollars. Once the situation became publicly known, thanks to reporting by Edmund Andrews of the New York Times, some oil companies agreed to renegotiate the leases, while others such as Exxon Mobil and Chevron refused. Complicating the situation, Kerr-McGee (now part of Anadarko Petroleum) later brought a legal challenge against the safeguards, making the dubious argument that Congress never intended to give MMS the authority to impose them. Last year the drillers received a favorable ruling in the case, prompting the Government Accountability Office to estimate recently that, if the decision is upheld, the loss of revenue from leases signed from 1996 through 2000 could be as high as $53 billion." Evidently the courts didn't think it was dubious Note that "but Clinton Administration officials" failed to include those provisions in some 1,000 deepwater leases it signed in 1998 and 1999." Wonder why? With all the big time law degrees held by Bill,Hillary, Biden and the rest of the Congress full of lawyers? Talk about being in the oil companies pockets. The oil companies were in the Clinton Adm pants This is what mike the biased democrat would call "old news" I remember writing about it on here several years ago. Some back bench Congressman brought it up and was promptly shut up then. Congress probably doesn't like to be reminded of it. Especially the Democrats     Roy Mark   Biden's mythical blue collar roots http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8643 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8643 http://townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2008/08/31/joe_bidens_mythical_blue-collar_roots The Wall Street Journal informed readers that "Sen. Joe Biden showcased his working-class upbringing." The New York Times said he "spoke frequently, and earnestly, of his blue-collar background." No, he didn't. In fact, he did just the opposite. Anyone paying attention would have noticed as much. But the legend of Joe Biden, born in a welding shop, dies hard with political reporters, who find it easier to romanticize a gritty, hardscrabble childhood than a conventionally comfortable one. The facts are there for anyone who wants to look at them. When Joe Biden Sr. died in 2002, his obituary in the News-Journal of Wilmington reported that when he married in 1941, "he was working as a sales representative for Amoco Oil Co. in Harrisburg." It went on, "Biden also was an executive in a Boston-based company that supplied waterproof sealant for U.S. merchant marine ships built during World War II. After the war, he co-owned an airport and crop-dusting service on Long Island." Upon moving his family to Delaware, the News-Journal said, Biden "worked in the state first as a sales manager for auto dealerships and later in real-estate condominium sales." Executive, co-owner and manager? Those titles identify the jobholder as solidly middle class, if not better. They fall in the category of white-collar occupations, not blue-collar. And Biden JR clearly knew the difference. In his book, "Promises to Keep," Biden writes that his father was "the most elegantly dressed, perfectly manicured, perfectly tailored car sales manager Wilmington, Del., had ever seen." Biden notes that he himself could have gone to the best public high school in Delaware. Instead, he enrolled at Archmere Academy, a Catholic prep school that made him think he had "died and gone to Yale." He took a summer job to help pay the steep tuition, which today amounts to $18,450 a year.” OMG, Biden's father worked for big oil?! How can we trust him to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?! Father a car salesman and real estate peddler? Joe comes by prevarications honestly   Roy Mark Come out, come out whoever you are http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8631 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8631 Here are parts of an article from the Washington Post concerning anonymous writers By TOM GRUBISICH The Washington Post "These days we want "transparency" in all institutions, even private ones. There's one massive exception — the Internet. It is, we are told, a giant town hall. Indeed, it has millions of people speaking out in millions of online forums. But most of them are wearing the equivalent of paper bags over their heads. We know them only by their Internet "handles" — gotalife, runningwithscissors, stoptheplanet and myriad other inventive names. Imagine going to a meeting about school overcrowding in your community. Everybody at the meeting is wearing nametags. You approach a cluster of people where one man is loudly complaining about waste in school spending. "Get rid of the bureaucrats, and then you'll have money to expand the school," he says, shaking his finger at the surrounding faces. You notice his nametag — "anticrat424." Between his sentences, you interject, "Excuse me, who are you?" He gives you a narrowing look. "Taking names, huh? Going to sic the superintendent's police on me? Hah!" In any community in America, if Mr. anticrat424 refused to identify himself, he would be ignored and frozen out of the civic problem-solving process. But on the Internet, Mr. anticrat424 is continually elevated to the podium, where he can have his angriest thoughts amplified through cyberspace as often as he wishes. He can call people the vilest names and that hate-mongering, too, will be amplified for all the world to see." I wonder if the now anonymous posters on here would be as brave and brash with their libelous postings if they were required to identify themselves. I would think that anyone who proudly proclaims themselves a "Biased Democrat" and ALWAYS automatically votes the straight Dem party ticket would also be proud to be identified as such a Party Loyalist. But we will never know will we? Because few have the guts to say in public what they now shout from the anonymous darkness.   SAME OL SAME OH http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8503 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8503 I doubt that I would agree with much Ruben writes but I sure agree with him about this   From a column in the St Paul MN Pioneer Press 8/17/08 Rubén Rosario: Allison's tale of money, politics hit raw nerves By Rubén Rosario Article Last Updated: 08/17/2008 10:03:48 AM CDT http://www.twincities.com/rosario/ci_10222709 But I do want to rap those on the online discussion board — the bully pulpit for the gutless, I call it some days — who took mean-spirited shots at Evenson because she struggles with depression. They blamed her plight and views on her mental affliction, as if people dealing with depression don't have the right to voice their opinions, or are maligned for it when they do. Those folks, who of course vented anonymously, went beyond gutless.   Roy Mark YOU MAY BE A LIBERAL IF http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8491 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8491 By John Hawkins With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, you just might be a liberal if... * You're sure the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to abortion and gay marriage, but not the right to own a handgun. * You think Dan Quayle is the dumbest Vice-President we ever had because he believed a flash card that misspelled "potato," but think Obama is a genius despite the fact he believes we have more than 57 states. * You'd be more upset about your favorite candidate being endorsed by the NRA than the Communist Party. * You think the same criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime will just hand them over to comply with the law if guns are made illegal. * You know that 86% of all income taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners and you still feel that the rich "aren't paying their fair share of the taxes." * You put a higher priority on oil pipelines possibly inconveniencing a few caribou than you do on lowering the price of gas for everyone in the country by drilling ANWR. * You're worried that Osama Bin Laden might not get a fair trial if we capture him, but want George Bush thrown in prison for being too zealous in protecting us from Al-Qaeda. * You get infuriated when you hear about the CEO of a Fortune 500 company making tens of millions of dollars, but don't see a problem with an actor, basketball player, or trial lawyer making the same amount. * You're constantly seeing subtle, coded racism in campaign ads, but see nothing racist about blacks being promoted over more qualified white applicants because of Affirmative Action. * You think it's obscene that oil companies are allowed to make 8.3 cents per gallon in profit with gas prices this high, but would never suggest cutting the 13 cents per gallon they pay on taxes to reduce the price of gas. * You think George Bush is a chickenhawk because he wanted to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the fact that he only served in the National Guard, but you don't think the same about Barack Obama, who has never served in the military and probably couldn't find either country on a map without help. * You think protesting outside of abortion clinics is extremism and should be illegal, but carrying around giant puppet heads while wearing a t-shirt that compares Bush to Hitler is just exercising your First Amendment rights. * You think the case for global warming is proven without a shadow of a doubt, but that we need another century or two worth of evidence to figure out if capitalism and free markets work better than socialism. * You believe the best way to fix the government screwing something up in the market is with...drumroll, please...more government intervention. * You think the first thing we should have done when Russia invaded Georgia was to take the matter to the United Nations, where Russia sits on the UN Security Council. * You spend your days criticizing the use of private jets, SUVS, and luxurious houses that consume enormous amounts of resources and then ride in an SUV to the airport, get on your private plane, and fly home to your luxurious house. * You have more nice things to say about countries like Cuba and France than you do about your own country.  Roy Mark WILL THE ADVOCATE EVEN ADMIT IT HAPPENED? http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8413 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/8413 Wonder if Edward's $400 haircut got messed up? I always wonder what these men like John Edwards are thinking when they choose to jump into bed with other women while living very public lives. How could they possibly assume that an affair will not be detected and reported in this day and age? Repeatedly, we've seen politicians outed for their sexual peccadillos; repeatedly, more politicians fall into this trap. Most of them are well-educated, they've achieved success professionally and then in the political arena, they've shown thoughtful judgement in the course of their careers, whether or not we always agree with their positions, BUT for some reason, they are incapable of exercising such judgement before they unzip their pants. We all know that politicians are arrogant -- they wouldn't run for office if they didn't have high opinions of their intelligence, abilities, and competence -- and that poltiical success breeds yet more arrogance. But these situations represent more than arrogant confidence that the men will not get caught; they represent sheer stupidity. Some people claim that women become less intelligent when they have babies; it seems clear to me that men's I.Q.'s drop SHARPLY when they're faced with a sexual opportunity. What an absolulte disgrace Edwards is........Horrible. And then to say it was when his wife's cancer was in remission (as if that makes it better) is the most cowardly, deplorable thing to say. I remember the Lewinsky affair was broken by Matt Drudge. Washington Liberal Media ignored one of the biggest stories of the century until they had no choice but to cover it. We no longer have a free press,We have a Left Wing Propaganda Machine that calls itself the free press,   WILL THE ADVOCATE EVEN ADMIT IT HAPPENED?   Roy Mark (I will not delete replies as some bloggers do) THE SKY'S NOT FALLING THE SKY'S NOT FALLIN G http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7482 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7482 <div>The claim that we need to clamp down CO2 generation to save the planet relies on three alleged statements of fact: 1) The earth is warming; 2) Man caused it; and 3) We can do something about it. Of the three, until recently only the first item was truly not debatable. Today, ALL of them are debatable. In the first place, global temperature readings have shown no warming at all since 1998, and temperatures plunged in 2007. In the second place, the alleged warming in the 1990s was almost certainly the result of the loss of the Soviet Union's temperature stations. The Soviets provided a huge percentage of the world's cold-weather readings, and when the Soviet Union collapsed, they stopped reporting. It would be like measuring average height in an elementary school over several years, and the school stopped serving Kindergarten and 1st grade halfway through the study. In the third place, temperatures were artificially inflated due to a Y2K error, making the 21st century seem hotter than it was. In the fourth place, urban encroachment has introduced a hot-side bias into US temperature readings sufficient to explain ALL of the warming of the 20th century. Summary: global warming may not even exist.</div> <div></div> <div></div> <div>Roy Mark </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div> Hurricane study puts less blame on global warming http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7467 http://community.victoriaadvocate.com/home/Blog/marksremarks/7467 <div>May 18, 2008, 11:13PM Hurricane study puts less blame on global warming</div> <div style="MARGIN: auto 0in">By ERIC BERGER Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">RESOURCES</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">STORM SIMULATION </div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> Scientists recently simulated 21st century Atlantic hurricane activity in a warming world. What they found: </div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">• 27 percent fewer tropical storms formed </div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">• 18 percent fewer hurricanes formed </div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">• 8 percent fewer major hurricanes formed (Category 3 and above) </div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">• 3 percent increase in storm maximum wind speed </div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">• 10 percent increase in average storm rainfall </div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">Source: Nature Geoscience </div> Cyclone Nargis recently made international headlines for dealing death and destruction to Myanmar. <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">Yet unlike the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, global warming received little blame for the intensification of Nargis. That's possibly because, in the nearly three years since New Orleans flooded, the science of hurricanes and climate has matured.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">A new scientific paper authored by prominent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists, published this weekend, reinforces the changing landscape.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">The paper, which simulated Atlantic hurricane activity during warming 21st century conditions, found 27 percent fewer tropical storms, and 18 percent fewer hurricanes. The strongest hurricanes, researchers found, had slightly higher wind speeds than before.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">"This does not support the idea that we've already seen a large positive trend in hurricane activity emerging from greenhouse gases," said lead author Tom Knutson, a Princeton, N.J.-based research meteorologist for NOAA. "In fact, it points in the other direction."</div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">Published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, the paper is notable for finding such a striking reduction in Atlantic activity. Earlier research has suggested a small reduction in total storms, or little change in a warming world.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">By suggesting a marked decrease in activity, the new work bolsters the views of Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center, who has argued that the apparent recent increase in Atlantic storm counts is due solely to better observational tools — satellites and the like — which blanket coverage of the Atlantic hurricane basin.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in">"After taking into account the changes in monitoring, the number of storms we're seeing now is on par with previous busy periods in the Atlantic," Landsea said.</div> <div style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"> </div>